SyncroMSP MCP Server

customers_update

Update an existing customer's details by providing only the fields to change. Uses customer ID to modify specified information.

Instructions

Update an existing customer. Only provided fields will be changed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "customers_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Customer ID (required)
`zip`	No	ZIP code
`city`	No	City
`email`	No	Email address
`notes`	No	Notes
`phone`	No	Phone number
`state`	No	State
`mobile`	No	Mobile number
`address`	No	Street address
`get_sms`	No	Receive SMS notifications
`opt_out`	No	Opt out
`lastname`	No	Last name
`no_email`	No	No email
`address_2`	No	Address line 2
`firstname`	No	First name
`properties`	No	Custom field values
`business_name`	No	Business name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided. The description only indicates partial update behavior but does not disclose permissions, side effects, return value, or any destructive aspects. The agent lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with action and key behavioral trait. Efficiently communicates essential info.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks details on return values, required permissions, error scenarios, or how the partial update works in practice. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema parameter descriptions; the partial update note is general behavior, not parameter-specific.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing customer'), and adds the behavioral note 'Only provided fields will be changed,' distinguishing it from create, get, list, delete, and specific field update tools like customers_update_phone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for partial updates but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like customers_update_phone or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server